Brave new world, here we come From the report: "The work, covered in two studies published on Wednesday in the journal Nature and Nature Cell Biology, showed how the cells that will eventually form the human body self-organize into the basic structure of a post-implantation human embryo. As well as advancing human biology expertise, the knowledge gained from studying these developments should help to improve in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and further progress in the field of regenerative medicine, the researchers said. But the research also raises the issue of an international law banning scientists from developing human embryos beyond 14 days, and suggests this limit may have to be reviewed. 'Longer cultures could provide absolutely critical information for basic human biology,' said researcher Zernicka-Goetz. 'But this would of course raise the next question - of where we should put the next limit.'"

There are actual ethical considerations with this sort of thing that have nothing to do with religion or souls or Baby Jesus.

Human rights is easily subverted when you can just redefine who is actually human.

But "ethics" is just a societal construct, and varies widely from person to person.As to redefining who is human, you may recall there are activists who want the Great Apes and chimps to be defined as human -- and other groups who want reasonably advanced robots to be defined as human.

Whether you choose to define an embryo as being human at 9 months, 6 months, or 13.75 days is completely arbitrary.

There are actual ethical considerations with this sort of thing that have nothing to do with religion or souls or Baby Jesus.

Human rights is easily subverted when you can just redefine who is actually human.

I think the problem stems (no pun intended) from binary thinking. We want to put neat labels on everything - either it is a human, or it isn't.But that isn't how nature works.We gradually change, both on a long term scale (evolution), and on a short scale (conception to death), and pinpointing exactly what is a human isn't that easy, because it's a moving target.

I think the question that needs to be asked is how human something is, whether it is an embryo, someone on life support, someone with Down's syndr

I think the problem stems (no pun intended) from binary thinking. We want to put neat labels on everything - either it is a human, or it isn't.

While I agree with your assessment, binary thinking and the arbitrary definitions of boundaries required to make it work in an analog world is not something that is going to go away. It's too useful to those who need the world to be simple enough to wrap their tender brains around.

It isn't just religious "superstition". Religious objections and actual humanist objections are one and the same - that each individual human being has a basic right to dignity and life, and to not be used as disposable lab rats.

On a strictly objective level, fetal experiments and (yes, Godwin) Dr. Mengele's experiments are based on the premise that the subjects were not considered to be human, in spite of having human DNA and the fact that they are individual distinct beings.

I'm sure there are plenty of nations that don't give a shit and would welcome research labs.

i am sure there are plenty of nations that wouldn't "give a shit" to test on adult humans in said research labs too.

-in the end question is what is the limit on scientific testing, that harms text subjects, but benefits other humans?

limits at present are arbitrary and irrational (though imperfectly practical); we don't allow healthy humans and late more developed embryos, but allow early ones, we allow some animals, not others, but feel squeamish and hold protests.at the same time we kill and eat animals(sometimes the same ones) and allow even very late embryos to ripped out and burned, and end their "life" in garbage.

all that uncertainty and irrationality inevitably flow from of moral relativism and utilitarianism, which are main components of dominant secular ideology of modern west.if you buy in to that ideology, accept inevitable ethical chaos and irrationality.deal with it! and live(if it lets you live) with it!

Zernicka-Goetz, who spoke to reporters in London, said a wealth of new information could be discovered if human embryos could be grown in a lab dish for just a few days more.

I don't particularly approve of the legal restrictions. Nevertheless, for early development, there is no significant difference between humans and primates (or even many other mammals) at the level of these studies, so they wouldn't have to use human embryos.

Do you ejaculate fertilized eggs when you wank off into the toilet? Unless you do, your comparison is not applicable. No one, not even the Pope, actually believes a bunch of sperm are a separate person.

If this is happening in the US, the decision will probably be made on grounds of the sensibilities of someone's imaginary friend rather than science or anything else that has anything to do with reality.

Sex - It's like ethanol and cannabis consumption except with a biological imperative. People are going to engage in sex, even have a drive to do it, and not many want to end up like the Duggars. Suppressing it leads to all kinds of whacky stuff.

As the late George Carlin said it, do you think there's more rape at the North Pole or the jungle? People would think it's in the jungle, 'cause people are naked and there's a lot of fucking going on. I say it's exactly the other way around. Because people are naked and there's a lot of fucking going on. Less pressure, ya know?

One guesses the 14 days thing is that this is when gastrulation occurs. That is the point in which the developing bundle of cells reorganizes itself into three layers of cells and is no longer able to split into two or more groups and make twins, triplets etc.

As such it is not the arbitrary point in time that a lot of commentators are presuming it is.

I think that almost any point in time is arbitrary. For just about any stage / time, you could point out a first that occurs. 14 days is especially arbitrary because it's 2 weeks of calendar time. Plus, it's especially arbitrary in the context of abortion discussions (which cast a long shadow over everything related to human development), because religious people typically point to the fertilization of the egg as 'the' moment when it gets a right-to-life. 14 days is irrelevant to that.

Google "snowflake babies". yes, there are religious organizations that are baptizing fertilized zygotes, so that their unborn souls can be with Jesus.

I really wish I was making this up.

Snowflake Children [wikipedia.org] are frozen embryos that are implanted via IVF into a woman who's not the biological mother. If you're pro-life, and believe that embryos are human from the moment of conception, it's a logical step.

Yes, you are correct, I am ignorant of the current state of law making in European countries, and am only vaguely aware that the origins of law over there are more heavily rooted in religion than in the US.

I guess my counter argument is why does it have to be a comparison? "My country uses less religion in crafting new laws than your country" still makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't care what country we are talking about, religion has no place in law making. I understand that the men and women craftin

"Opportunist" is a bigoted, anti-American European who used this issue to try and get in a dig at the US. And the kind of ignorance he is peddling, unfortunately, has taken root in the US, with Americans themselves having a distorted view of their own country and making bad political decisions by trying to emulate Europe. Just look at the kind of rhetoric that has been coming from people like Sanders and Obama. So, people like you mindlessly

It is? The whole "teaching the controversy" bullshit could have fooled me.

But then, why do I complain? I'm in Europe! If the US descends into medieval times, we can take over as the leading power in international development again.

Hint: If you want to see what it's like when religion rules, take a good look at the Middle East. Iran, Afghanistan, that's your future. Well, sans oil money. Since you're pretty much using your juice yourself.

But then, why do I complain? I'm in Europe! If the US descends into medieval times, we can take over as the leading power in international development again.

You mean having countries like Germany that ban gay marriage, gay adoption, and limit choice to the first trimester? You mean a continent in which many nations have God in their constitutions and law, have state churches, ban embryonic stem cell research, and subsidize churches massively with public funds?

Despite the existence of problems of the type you mention, this doesn't go for all scientists.

In addition, science has a self-correcting mechanism, something no religion has.

That constant pull to compare everything with reality does get us results.

People should be taught the difference between faith and blind faith. Blind faith is when you bank on your parents being right about religion and not checking whether what you're told matches reality. Faith is what you can have after checking without confirmation

I hate to break it to you, but there is extensive evidence that there is never very much difference between humans and other primates at any level of development. The differences are minuscule compared to the similarities.

Hey, I'm fine with abortion as birth control, fetish, or whatever in the early stages. But doing this with human embryos seems weirdly irrelevant and provocative - or 'human exceptionalist' at best, which is pretty non-scientific.

Certainly from an embryological point of view, the significant differences between a fully-formed human and chimp (or pig, for that matter) are minuscule - at least as relates to the kinds of discovery that could be made from observing an embryo in its first few weeks. I assume w

I hate to break it to you, but there is extensive evidence that there is never very much difference between humans and other primates at any level of development. The differences are minuscule compared to the similarities.

I hate to break it to you, but that is wrong. While there are no gross anatomical differences during early development, there clearly are later in development. Furthermore, there are molecular, biochemical, and genetic differences from the beginning, including drug interactions and common

A lot of humans will need to suffer for humans, if we're going to get the sort of health technologies that will prevent most human illnesses and dysfunctions currently in existence. Animal models only take you so far.

There are fewer primates than humans, I think.Also, the eggs are collected after IVF treatment (desired by the women concerned) and donated with their consent.A primate would have to be subjected to an unnecessary medical procedure to collect the eggs.I think the current situation is preferable.

Any limit is going to be arbitrary. Let's put it another way: Whoever wants to do something like that has to show why. If there is a good reason to grow a body in a petri dish to 9 months, fine. For shits and giggles, even 14 days is more than you should get.

Lines drawn in the sand only inhibit those who follow the law. Those who don't will continue to conduct experiments perhaps in nations who just don't care what you do to a fetus. China will have super humans before we ever do if we continue to stop progress like this.

Let China have their superhumans. There's more to existence than being the next person with more technological "progress".

I love science and what we can do with it, but pursuit of it without an understanding of what you're actually trying to achieve, or if that goal is actually desirable, just leads down a path that doesn't achieve actual happiness for anyone. What good is a superhuman if you can't be one? What good is a superhuman if *everyone* is one?

If we stick to this 14-day limit, then we will never know how things work exactly after this point. The question is thus whether we can use that knowledge for the benefit of humanity, to which the answer appears to be 'yes'.

What I find most tantalising about this is the prospect this opens of artificial uteruses, and with it the elimination of the need to carry one's unborn child along inside one's natural incubator for nine months, at least for humans of the female persuasion. This would also enable same-sex couples to have a child with their DNA, without requiring anyone else to carry the child to term.

This in addition to the things we can learn from studying the development of embryos and stem cells in general, for both current and future humans.

The possible positive impact these advances may have to me at least far outweigh the philosophical musing some people seem to be absorbed in.

Oh wait. We only do that stupid bullshit when it's a story about being able to fertilize an egg in a lab without sperm (or some such other development) and the sexist conclusion is a society without men.

The real problem of course is that governments and politicians of the world are limiting human knowledge and discoveries by sticking their shitty hands and noses where they do not belong at all - science. The real problem of ethics is the ignoramuses of the general public and their ignoramus pieces of shit 'representatives' destroying individual freedom of scientists to run any experiments they need to run on cells, tissues just because those cells and tissues can at some point become a human. Well, if the

No babies are involved in an abortion and frankly it's a stretch to call it a brain for several years after the birth. We are biologically programmed to adore and protect babies but look who's talking isn't actually real.I'm simply suggesting that researchers are the cautious types and can be trusted to make reasonable judgements, with consent, as to what they will be able to safely accomplish here. There certainly is nobody else who is better qualified to make this judgement. I see no ethical problem with

This is a false dichotomy. Mostly the problem is that we are biologically programmed to protect the young to improve their chances of surviving to become fully developed humans. This is just an arbitrary line in the sand. Fetus and baby are both examples of early stage potential humans, in other words, not yet and may never be humans. In this case, definitely would never be without artificial aid humans. Without our instinct to protect the young the logical boundry would be when the brain is fully or almost

"Sounds like you're speaking based purely on your own experience -- as a baby, not as a parent."Actually I'm neither speaking based on my memories of being a baby (of which I have none just like everyone else) nor as a parent. I'm referring to the results of actual objective study of human brain development. As a parent your biological imperative actually negates you from being able to rationally form opinions on the subject. Why on earth you think the perspective of a parent would be more informed or less

The clinical parameters you propose negate the possibility of understanding or detecting agency. In purely empirical experiments you are trying to isolate out the agency of individuals. Remember, David Hume claimed the "self" does not exist -because he was investigating as an (especially skeptical) empiricist.

The are a few behavioral traits humans exhibit that have no analog in the animal kingdom. As Twain said, man is the only animal that blushes. There are more formally defined traits too like learned

To the Likers, a single fertilized cell has full human rights. The Choicers punt until birth, leaving the debate with a huge excluded middle.

We have put a lot of thought into determining when life ends, and what we have decided on is cessation of brain activity. Why not define the start of brain activity, about six weeks in, as when life begins?

The percentage of "Choicers" who punt it to nine months is so vanishing small it's not worth talking about. Most reasonable and rational people who believe in choice thats like 99.9999% of them put the end of "choice" where the foetus is able to survive independently of the mother.

The percentage of "Choicers" who punt it to nine months is so vanishing small it's not worth talking about. Most reasonable and rational people who believe in choice thats like 99.9999% of them put the end of "choice" where the foetus is able to survive independently of the mother.

With incubators and such, even extremely premature babies (1 pound birth weight!) have survived. At the other extreme, infants and toddlers can't survive on their own for years after delivery from mom.

I believe in both science and God. I believe that all mankind has agency to choose for themselves, so I am against any governmental theocracy or arbitrary laws enforcing a religious set of rules. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That means that

Speaking religiously, the Scriptures tell us that God formed the physical body of Adam, then put in him the breath of life (often interpreted as spirit). Upon receiving the breath of life, Adam became a "living soul."

Doesn't it bother you to know that Adam is myth? Humans are primates and come from common ancestors of other living primates. Or do you throw all the way and cling to a myth? Just curious.

Speaking religiously, the Scriptures tell us that God formed the physical body of Adam, then put in him the breath of life (often interpreted as spirit). Upon receiving the breath of life, Adam became a "living soul."

Doesn't it bother you to know that Adam is myth? Humans are primates and come from common ancestors of other living primates. Or do you throw all the way and cling to a myth? Just curious.

In a word, no. It doesn't bother me if Adam and Eve are a myth or historic figures. I believe that God speaks to man in a way that man understands at the time. Likewise, science is man's best guess based on current evidence. Religion, when perfectly revealed and understood SHOULD NOT conflict with perfectly understood science. Both science and religion are a "what we know / understand now" deal. Either could be refined as more is revealed / discovered.

From my personal experience with speaking to people, most choicers stop being ok with abortions at 3rd trimester, and most lifers start are fine with abortion at 1st trimester (using abortion as a guide of "when does 'life' begin"). The debate is really at the second trimester. But in the US, the politics/political theater/extreme groups keep glossing over this point, and try to polarize the issue into all or none. This polarization prevents actual civil discourse and resolution. It's rather sad, actually.

Most regeneration in animals is either very simple animals like flatworms or imperfect regeneration in some amphibians and reptiles. To get an actual usable organ or limb studying how they grow is the best way. Regrowing a finger without any bones like a lizard replaces its tail isn't going to help much.